Hey!
Thanks for your feedback

A few things:

* It does not evolve a lot (Neither the database nor the proposal are
forward looking - RFC3808 is from 2004)
* There is nothing more complete (or more official)
* It has vendor buy in (form Microsoft and IBM for which it maps to their
code page), the same names are also used by iconv on unix system
* It is widely used by browsers, mail clients
* We have experience with referencing rfc in the standards.
* If this is still a concern, we could duplicate the entire thing in the
standard - which I would recommend against.

That standard registry is pivotal to the proposal portability. we need to
agree on names and meaning.

I hope that helps,

Regards,
Corentin


On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 at 09:26, Peter Brett <pbrett_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi Corentin and SG16,
>
> We discussed P1885R1 briefly in the British Standards Institute meeting
> yesterday.
>
> We support the general direction of the paper and agree that it seeks to
> solve a real problem. We support further work.
>
> We have significant concerns about the proposal to rely on the IANA
> registry and RFC2978/RFC3808 process, including a normative reference to
> the Character Sets database. The Character Sets database is not an
> International Standard and is maintained by a process that appears to
> provide neither the quality assurance nor the checks and balances built
> into the ISO process.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Peter
>
>